So for years now, I’ve been listening to the panic-mongering about our atheist Komminiss devout Muslim Nazi President and his imminent seizure of power and imposition of a Stalinist atheist police Sharia radical Islamic state:

But when he actually *does* do the stuff that lawless tyrants in fact do (such as inaugurate lawless secret kill lists and start blowing up innocent men, women and children), the GOP standard bearer and Prolife Paladin thinks that’s great and “prolife” conservatives and “antiwar” Lefties clasp hands to celebrate his tough stand against four year Pakistani girls surviving to adulthood to join Al Quaida:

One can be forgiven for wondering how postmodern conservatives can simultaneously believe that Obama is a) a dangerous reincarnation of Hitler, Stalin and Mao *and* that b) he should be entrusted with secret, unilateral power to murder whoever he likes without any accountability *and* that c) he is both incredibly weak, d) too dangerously addicted to Nazi Stalin atheist Islamic tyranny and e) the model for Romney’s future Just and Wise Foreign Policy.

However, all confusion vanishes when we recall that the Postmodern Right, as much as the Postmodern Left, is in the service of an increasingly fascist and magical vision of reality untethered from Truth (that is, God) and increasingly enslaved to the will to power (i.e, pride). As a reader recently commented:

One critical error people make in contemplating fascism is to believe that fascism is about ideas, dogmas, or programmatic solutions to human problems. Fascism is none of those things. First and above all, fascism is a belief in the state as the supreme human achievement. Or, as the Party recently said, the state is the only thing we all belong to. This gives the fascist state a flexibility unknown to most totalitarian movements, notably socialism, which are bound by dogmatic commitments and the corresponding need to pretend that the dogmas are productive.

Put another way, the magical thinking of socialism is like fan fiction — it’s limited by a background story. So Pope John Paul II, when he was a cardinal in socialist Poland, could upbraid the socialist utopia for failing in its constitutional promise to respect religion. In contrast, the magical thinking of fascism is unlimited, which makes fascism a much more potent and insidious form of evil. So Eduard Milch could rise to the rank of Field Marshal, and head Luftwaffe fighter production, even though his father was Jewish, qualifying Milch for death in a concentration camp. As Herman Goering said, “I decide who is a Jew.”

We see this on the Left as well as the Right. That’s why both “antiwar” Lefties and “prolife” Righties clasp hands in ardent support for the Dear Leader when the Dear Leader conducts Oceania’s war with Eurasia by blowing up civilians and the Ministry of Truth conducts an entire “debate” in which that fact is never once discussed. At present, the illusion of “change” is about to be engineered for us again (when Romney wins). Yet the “change” will consist of a new President who will continue the policies of the old President while the postmodern Right celebrates the refreshing “change”.

The Left at least has the excuse of having been spoonfed an anti-Catholic and anti-Christian ideology for 50 years in the academy, rendering it intellectually clever and morally depraved. What is the “conservative Catholic” excuse for this incoherent fealty to whatever FOX happens to be saying this minute? Him to whom much is given, much will be required. Who is in graver danger?: the pagan who says “What is truth?” or the Christian who says, “Jesus is the truth” and who then sets about acting just like a pagan with continued secret, unilateral attacks on civilian men, women, and children and a renewed program of torture?

Okay, Mark, you know I’m in about 90% agreement with you on all this. But you repeatedly downplay the signigicance of the fact that, when Romney wins, chocolate rations will go up.

Mark Shea

When will you stop listening to the propaganda broadcasts from Emmanuel Goldstein? Report to Room 101 at the Ministry of Truth for re-education immediately.

Mark Gordon

Corruptio optimi pessima.

Frank Doyle

I believe there is a saying on the Left which states,” no enemies on the Left.” Just substitute ” Right” for “Left”
and I think it sums up the condition nicely. I think both the Left and the Right are guilty of blind allegiance
to their particular party. I don’t trust Obama nor do I trust Romney. In conscience I will not vote for either
one.

For those Catholics who hope Romney will be an improvement over Obama, I know of nothing he did
while governor that would inspire such a hope. Just for the record, I am a life long Massachusetts
resident so my opinion of Romney is based on direct experience of his “leadership”. I think he may
be even more dangerous than Obama. Why? Because Romney has spent his life in a cult where truth is
arbitrary which is why he has no problem changing positions. He was adamantly pro abortion until
he decided to run for president. Incidentally, he became an absentee governor once he sought the
Republican nomination.

We need to beg God for His mercy. Pray for the conversion of our country. I don’t see any other way.

beccolina

I wondered why Romney wasn’t back to Massachusetts as soon as Sandy cleared. Yes, he’s campaigning, but he’s the governor. He ought to be there. Bad form, and a bad outlook, when a leader spends more time on possible future responsibilities than on current ones.

Midwest Catholic

Romney is the former governor of Massachusetts. Deval Patrick has been governor of MA since Jan 4, 2007.

Matthew

Beccolina PLEASE tell me you have no intention of voting. If you haven’t been paying enough attention to know that Romney is FORMER governor of Mass. than you have not been paying enough attention to vote intelligently.

Adam

Mark,

War is part of our human condition. There are rules of war that should be obeyed, but war in and of itself a bad thing. Many wars have happened in the course of Christendom’s existence, some pointless but most just. I think the mid-20th Century Birkenstock, kumbaya-singing, peacenik culture that you seem to embrace would be repulsive to Cardinal Spellman, once considered the spokesman for Catholicism in the USA.

Mark Shea

Yes. Secret kill lists, indefinite detention and deliberately blowing up civilians is just war and protesting this is mid-20th century Birkenstock, kumbaya-singing peacenik culture. One question: could you possibly invoke more brain-dead caricaturization in your effort to make the worship of Mars Catholic?

Merkn

The catechism tells us it is the “duty” of the President of the United States to use force to obtain the “end of justice”. The President believes he is using force against those allied with individuals who murdered more than 3,ooo innocent pesons on September 11. This is what the catechism tells us about the use of force: As with all moral acts the use of force to obtain justice must comply with three conditions to be morally good. First, the act must be good in itself. The use of force to obtain justice is morally licit in itself. Second, it must be done with a good intention, which as noted earlier must be to correct vice, to restore justice or to restrain evil, and not to inflict evil for its own sake. Thirdly, it must be appropriate in the circumstances. An act which may otherwise be good and well motivated can be sinful by reason of imprudent judgment and execution. ” The key here is the teaching that the use of force is licit. The question is does the use meet the criteria here and in the following sections of the catechism which reiterate the 4 classical criteria among other more modern considerations.

Merkn

So to take your charges in order: “secret kill lists”. They are not secret. you know about them. Are the persons on the list legitimately on there and are they subject of attack. I don’t know. I don’t have all the facts. Is there a more humane way to attack them. Same answer. You may be right. Or Adam may be right. It is a legitimate argument. Name calling doesn’t advance it. I assume the President is not deliberately targeting the innocent; why do you believe he is? I agree this can never be licit. On the other hand civilians are sometimes killed in war. Again we need to know more about what happened in the individual cases. “Indefinite detention” is arguably humane if in fact these people are terrorists. I think we are entitled to and should demand a lot more information about the conduct of the war so we can make informed moral judgments. Perhaps the President will lose the election, and we will once again have a Press that asks these questions of a new executive they are less enamored with. You consistently raise good questions that no one else does that need to be addressed. I simply do not understand why you adopt the venomous tone that you do with anyone who disagrees with you.

Richard Johnson

“I assume the President is not deliberately targeting the innocent; why do you believe he is?”

Why do you assume he is not?

Merkn

I guess I just assume his good faith at this level. It is hard for me to believe an American president of either party would deliberately murder children. I could be wrong and can see where others would disagree especially if you consider this president’s record on life issues. The question you ask is certainly fair and goes to the overall point that we need and are entitled to more information. I am giving him the benefit of the doubt, but I want to see the evidence. Civilian casualties are a brutal consequence of almost any military action. But we have the right to know what happened and the duty to insist that the legitimate rules of war are followed.

Richard Johnson

“I guess I just assume his good faith at this level. It is hard for me to believe an American president of either party would deliberately murder children.”

Well, Obama is pro-choice, is he not? Romney supports abortion in cases of rape, incest, and the life of the mother. Are these not positions that support the murder of children?

Or do you believe that the President is innocent unless he personally pulls the trigger?

Richard Johnson

“Perhaps the President will lose the election, and we will once again have a Press that asks these questions of a new executive they are less enamored with.”

Perhaps an even more relevant question is this: will Christians (real Christians, not those liberal-hippy freaks in the Jesus micro bus) still ask the questions once a conservative Republican is in office? By and large they didn’t ask them of the Bush administration, and those who did ask were considered to be supporters of terrorism

Merkn

I think the press and public at large were extremely skeptical of the policies of the Bush administration. Many on the right oppose the Patriot Act. Obama was in part voted in because he promised an end to these Bush policies such as indefinite intention at Gitmo and the prosecution of the Iraq war.

Richard Johnson

“I think the press and public at large were extremely skeptical of the policies of the Bush administration.”

In what dark cave did you sleep from 2001 through 2004? President Bush put forth what has been shown to be a tissue of errors in calling for the invasion of Iraq, and the press (mainstream especially, but even the alternative conservative blogosphere) was largely supportive of his claims. Many on the left and right questioned the conclusions, and their questioning has since been shown to be correct. Still it was difficult to hear voices of criticism against Bush’s policies from the right, and during the 2008 campaign many of those on the right doubled down in their support for McCain’s continuance of Bush’s war efforts.

Christians need to be asking hard questions of our national leaders of all parties. If we are going to call the press to task for shirking its responsibility, we had best make sure we are doing ours.